Related Links

Yes, you can fight city hall** and your state legislature.

"I don't want to see Brook Park get an F in anything."

--- Councilman Danny Colonna of Brook Park, Ohio, on why his city voted to improve
its bicycling ordinances in response to a failing grade from a
local bike law reform project.

** Actually we didn't "fight" city hall in Brook Park. We
published a critical review of the bicycle ordinances to get their attention,
then we worked with city government to make the laws better. When the
problems were fixed, the Ohio Bicycle Federation presented a "Good Cycling Laws"
award to the city. Everyone won this "fight".
--- Fred Oswald, leader of a law reform project in NE Ohio.

And you'll improve conditions for cycling.

Better traffic laws make cycling safer and more enjoyable.

What's Wrong With Bicycle Traffic Laws?

Traffic laws are supposed to promote your safety if you obey them, and
protect your rights if someone else causes a collision. The core
principles of traffic law do this very well for both motorists and cyclists, but
there are many add-ons in bicycle traffic law that degrade both our safety and
our rights.

There is no federal traffic law. Traffic law is a state function, and
the troublesome add-ons are state (and local) laws.

This is not a problem for motor vehicle operators. Motor vehicle
traffic laws are generally uniform throughout the 50 states. A motorist
traveling from state to state need not learn a new set of laws with each border
crossing. Also, local authorities have only limited powers to enact
special ordinances and notice must be given via signs. The standard
traffic laws promote safe practices.

Cyclists do not enjoy this uniformity or benevolence of bicycle operation
laws. State laws differ widely and local laws are often loose cannons
aimed at our rights. Well-meaning but misguided lawmakers treat cyclists
like children. Moreover, many troublesome laws betray a lack of knowledge
of the actual causes of bicycle crashes.

The safest way to operate a bicycle is as the lawful driver of a
vehicle. This means riding on the roadway while following the same traffic
rules as other drivers. Cyclists who operate this way have one-fifth the
accident rate of the average bicycle operator. Paradoxically, the best and
safest practices are sometimes prohibited while dangerous mistakes of novices
are encouraged.

What happens in court or with the insurance adjustor if a cyclist is involved
in an collision

What's Being Done to FIX the Problem?

Starting in 2002, a small committee has been working on improvements to
bicycle traffic laws. Below is a capsule of what we've been doing:

(A) First we studied the current UVC (Uniform Vehicle Code) to identify
deficiencies from the standpoint of safe, efficient and equitable use of
roadways for cycling. We developed "Model Laws" starting with portions of
the UVC. (We "incorporate by reference" the portions we find good.)
This model is the standard against which laws of the various states, and the
existing UVC are rated. We consider any rules that impact cyclists, not
just those specific for cycling. For example, the "slow vehicle rule",
§11-301(b) in addition to the bicycle "far right rule", §11-1205(a).
See our
proposed Model Laws, which explains how these two rules affect
cyclists.

(B) In developing ratings, we briefly describe problems and determine
how serious they are. A really dangerous law, such as mandated riding on
the left (wrong-way), or that requires riding on sidewalks, is treated much more
seriously than "nuisance" requirements for ineffective safety equipment such as
a bell or front reflector.

To calculate a score, we start with 100 points and then deduct for the
defects. We may add a few points for any good features not in the
model. For example, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Arizona and Idaho have
a good "bicycle drivers' manual", based on the booklet
Bicycling Street Smarts by John Allen. A good drivers
manual, besides being a great teaching tool, defines proper cycling
practices. This helps police and the courts to interpret the law so that
it enhances safety. Police training is an essential element.

After we total up the score, we assign a letter grade (on an A-F
scale). More information about this process can be found in
Criteria for Rating Bicycle Traffic
Laws. Most states that we have examined are worse than the UVC;
many rate lower than "C" and several fail. (We would not bother to do a
project like this if there were not serious problems.)

(D)&nbsp We have started rating state laws against our standard, beginning
with some of the states near where committee members live or from where others
have sent us data. You can see preliminary ratings (in pdf files) for
states shown below. Note, this is a work in progress. Thus, as we
work on various parts of the project, you may find inconsistencies between these
ratings.

Preliminary Bicycle Traffic Law Summaries & Ratings

Note: occasionally revise some of the criteria, thus some
ratings change. We have incomplete information for many of the
states. We need help to go further. (See below.)

(E)&nbsp As we work on other states, we seek input from the larger cycling
community to include any concepts that did not occur to our small group.
If you wish to help, see below.

(F)&nbsp Once we get several states rated we can begin to write articles
publicizing the work and pointing out where and why improvement is needed.
We expect this project will be tremendously useful to state cycling
organizations trying to improve their state laws or to stop a proposed bad
law.

Ultimately, it is up to state organizations to get
problems fixed. This article is intended to be a reference.

(G)&nbsp We hope to finish the project to encompass all 50 states.

(H)&nbsp Over time, revise the ratings as (hopefully) laws are
improved. The ratings and supporting documents will be extremely useful
whenever bad laws are introduced in some state legislature. For example,
an attempt to mandate wrong-way riding in Montana (2001) or an exorbitant
bicycle license fee proposed for Vermont in 2003.

The committee is well along with tasks A, B and C above. We have at
least preliminary ratings for a few states (D above).

Most of the UVC rules that we used in this effort came from "PedBikeLaws" a
database downloaded from the
NHTSA Web Site. We copied these to a file of
excerpts from the
UVC. We also added a few rules from printed copies of the UVC that
were missing from PedBikeLaws.

Related Projects to Improve Cycling Laws

Cycling "State of the Union" map

There is a
Cycling State of the Union map for 2012 that presents a simple 3-category
rating system by Ian Brett Cooper. As of early 2012, the rating has 22
red (bad) states, 26 amber (poor) and only 2 green (good) states. (A small
copy of the map appears at right. Follow the link for details.)

Most of the package of
Ohio Traffic
Law Reforms. proposed by the Ohio Bicycle Federation were enacted into
law (effective 9/21/06). The changes raised Ohio's grade from "D" to
"B". The OBF has a new package of reforms.

Copy your state's laws to a working file and then copy laws of interest to a
"template" file (rich text format) for the
rating.

We need to look at ALL traffic laws, not just the bike ones. In many
states, specific (and often bad) rules can be found in a "bicycle section".
But we must also search for the word "bicycle" in the entire traffic code to
check for other rules.

For example, the Ohio Revised Code includes two places (outside the bike
section) where local authorities are given powers for "regulating the operation
of bicycles." These were serious defects (until the recent reforms).
See §4511.07 "Local traffic regulations" and §4511.711 "Driving upon sidewalk
area." The reforms allow local regulations only so long as they are not
"fundamentally inconsistent with the uniform rules of the road" and
"no such regulation shall prohibit the use of bicycles on any public street
or highway."

Review your state vehicle code for regulations that should apply only to
motor vehicle operators and thus not to cyclists, and see whether your state's
laws are written properly, so as to exclude cyclists from those laws. These
regulations include "following too closely", racing prohibitions, and any
requirement for continuous turn signals among many others.

Bike = Vehicle? To be or not to be?

All 50 states fall into one of two categories: either they define the
bicycle as a vehicle, or they give the cyclist the rights and responsibilities
of a vehicle operator when operating the bicycle on the roadway. Either of
these can be good for cyclists, but it depends on other aspects of the vehicle
code.

Occasionally, we hear from people who believe all 50 states should define the
bicycle as a vehicle. This seems to make sense, because a bicycle is actually a
vehicle and because "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers
of vehicles."

To this we say, "Be careful what you ask for." This is not a matter of
changing one line in the vehicle code, but rather a matter of going through the
code line by line and possibly making dozens of changes, all of which must be
approved by numerous large committees. Once you start this process, there
is a substantial danger that mistakes, mischief and mediocrity will make things
worse than they were to begin with. So unless you find your state code is
squeaky-clean of these problems, stick with the format your state already has,
and make the best of it.

Things to check for

Many states require brakes that can make the "braked wheel skid".
Besides encouraging irresponsible operation, this is impossible to meet for the
front wheel of most bicycles. The UVC has a much better rule (stop in 15'
from 10 mph.) Some states have a stricter brake requirement that may be
troublesome for a rear-brake-only bike. [1]

In addition check that a right turn hand signal may be given by the right
hand and arm, not just the left. Finally, state laws are unlikely to
include the following (these are not currently in the UVC):

Procedure to allow access to freeway shoulders

Bicycle travel on shoulders should be allowed but not required
(except it is OK to require using freeway shoulders)

We generally oppose laws requiring wearing of helmets, mainly because
this creates too much emphasis on "safe crashing" rather than "not
crashing". Helmet laws may also deny a cyclist the right to compensation
from negligence of a motorist, because of "contributory negligence". In
addition, we have seen evidence that any safety benefits from increased helmet
use are overwhelmed by the loss of health benefits to persons discouraged from
cycling by such rules.

Follow-on Projects:

(A.) Write up standards for police training and for equitable law
enforcement. This should be coordinated with the International Police
Mountain Bike Assoc. There is a very promising
National Police Bicycle Awareness Curriculum, developed
through a grant from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

(B.) Write up a position paper that can be used as support for cyclists
wrongly accused of traffic offenses (such as Selz in Ohio, Clark in Michigan and
several from the Boston area). We should get advice from attorneys
experienced in defending cyclists (such as Steve Magas of Cincinnati, Ray Thomas
of Portland and Andrew Fisher of Boston). In addition, attorneys should be
taught best cycling practices.

(C.) Support state organizations trying to get state versions of the
booklet Bicycling Street Smarts by John Allen. This booklet is a
significant help to interpret bicycle traffic laws in a manner consistent with
the best and safest practices. It has been adopted as a "bicycle driver's
manual" in PA, OH, FL, AZ, ID and pending in other states.

(D.) Look at what are appropriate penalties for serious traffic
offenses (e.g. hit-and-run, vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, reckless
driving). At present, the penalties for many of these crimes are far too
trivial to act as much of a deterrent to dangerous drivers. Only recently
Maryland finally reclassified fleeing the scene of a crash (i.e. hit-and-run) as
a felony (it had been just a misdemeanor, even where fatalities were involved).

Footnotes

[1] A handy way to compare brake specifications is to express the performance
in terms of "g" (Earth's gravitational constant). The UVC requirement
(stop in 15' from 10 mph on flat, dry, level pavement) is equal to 0.22 g.
This is calculated from the formula:

John Forester determined [2] that a rear brake alone on a typical bike is
capable of about 0.3 g (then the wheel skids). He also found that the
maximum deceleration possible from the front brake is 0.67 g (then the bike will
pitch over). With both brakes, the limit is still 0.67 g (at the limit,
the rear brake contributes nothing). A typical cyclist on a bike with dual
brakes is doing well to produce 0.5 g.

Forester measured the heat dissipation ability of rim brakes vs. coaster
brakes on a 2040 ft. descent. He found that rim brakes did not reach an
excessive temperature but the coaster brakes burned-up completely. See
"Safe" Brakes that Burn Up.

The previous version of the UVC (prior to year 2000) required brakes that could
stop in 25 feet from 10 mph, or 0.13 g. The Pennsylvania brake requirement
is 15 feet from 15 mph (0.5 g). This may be impossible for rear-wheel-only
brakes (i.e. coaster brakes).